Talk:Germany#rfc F855B95

Every other country has them listed on their page, why should Germany be the Exception.

Japan has Ainu listed

United Kingdom Has all of its minor languages recognised, and we even have a bit for these minority languages on the language bar. how is adding it unconstructive? Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:It's a hollow argument merely to point to other pages, cf. WP:OTHERCONTENT. In addition, infobox parameters do not need to be populated just because they exist and are theoretically applicable—quite the contrary. The current presentation seems totally adequate, and you would ideally make a positive argument in terms of to best summarize the corresponding content in the article body, which is the purpose of an infobox. Remsense ‥ 论 18:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Including minority languages such as Sorbian, Frisian, and Romani highlights Germany's rich cultural tapestry. rather than the very homogenous picture not having it paints. Highlighting minority languages encourages multilingualism and shows the value of learning and preserving languages, Incorporating minority languages can enhance the educational value of the article, providing readers with a broader understanding of Germany's cultural and linguistic landscape. Gorgonopsi (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Giant lists in the infobox don't aid our readers of j understanding.... in my view it's even more confusing. The more languages there are the less they should be placed in the info box and explained in the article to give a cultural context. Moxy🍁 00:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::We don't seek to "highlight" our favorite or most valued aspects of a topic, but achieve editorial balance in what elements we include and how we present those elements, lest we start attempting to right what we see as great wrongs. Remsense ‥ 论 00:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I would at least suggest listing such languages as Danish, Frisian, Romani and Sorbian, which are natively spoken minority languages that are all officially recognized.{{cite web|url=http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Broschueren/2010/nat_minderheiten.pdf?__blob%3DpublicationFile |title=National Minorities in Germany|publisher=BMI|date=3 February 2025|page=44|access-date=2014-06-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130421151141/http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Broschueren/2010/nat_minderheiten.pdf?__blob=publicationFile |archive-date=2013-04-21 }}.

::::-Sincerely & Aufrichtig, Babelball (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC) Babelball (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is already listed in a footnote. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I ask directly: who is in favor of inserting the standard for Wikipedia for the ranking of a country´s economy in the worldwide rankings and who supports more about Germany´s role in international politics in said world than a link to a European wide article. more information here is also wiki standard. I was asked to post this topic and so I ask for a direct discussion here. BauhausFan89 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:both polls are about the intro text. BauhausFan89 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::See #International organizations/Paneuropeism Moxy🍁 16:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::For reference, I believe the edit being referred to in this post is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&diff=prev&oldid=1273910432 this one]; please correct me if I have misunderstood.

::I don't think that edit is needed. There's really no such thing as "standard for Wikipedia"/"wiki standard" - the closest we have is WP:COUNTRYDETAIL, which would not support the proposed change. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::the listed example in WP is "A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world,"

:::Those refrences are all global, which is the full picture of a countries economy and should therefore be provided.

:::regarding international.

:::"Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums." the link here leads to a sub Canada site, not to some random list of all European countries. the international role of Germany should be cleary specified in the intro text. I propose the add one I did with my last edit. BauhausFan89 (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The link is to International organisation membership of Canada. International organisation membership of Germany does not exist; if it did, we could link to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::that is my point. it doesnt. so we need the line "founding member of EU, G7 and G20" to have some information specific to Germany. BauhausFan89 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Every state member of the G20 is a founding member, and the G7 isn't much less of an exaggeration. Further, these grouping are really not of EU-level significance. CMD (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::ok? then you proof my point of founding member of the EU at last. add that to 3rd biggest world economy and we round up the intro text nicely. BauhausFan89 (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::so I want to round up the intro text, so the lines are all the same lenght, want to add information, which is added in every major countries wiki intro and so Im asking why cant I add those points? BauhausFan89 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Having the lines all the same length is not something we need to strive for. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::but we need Germany specific information the intro text with due weight and third biggest world economy and founding member of the EU are of due weight. BauhausFan89 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The lead is already Germany-specific. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I hope it is on a Germany wiki article. the link to international organisations is not Germany specific. the short list, Germany specific, which was there before, makes more sense. and the world ranking of the economy has due weight. BauhausFan89 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Sounds like you found an article to create..... a gap in coverage that you seem excited about. Moxy🍁 01:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::found something to link ;) BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::so given the weight of the world ranking of a country´s economy and the importance of the EU for European peace I would like to add "and the world´s third biggest by GDP" and "while being a founding member of the EU." BauhausFan89 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::The lead already includes the founding member of the EU claim and also largest GDP in Europe. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::fair. happy that its placed there. then I only want to add the world ranking in the lead, wiki standard and of given weight. BauhausFan89 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::As already noted, there's no such thing as a "wiki standard" that would require such a change. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::can we RE insert great power and third biggest economy by GDP. I ask for consensus with more than one other editor. BauhausFan89 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Per above, this proposed insertion isn't needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::I stated before: inserting great power in the intro of the article allining with Wikipedia’s guidelines for lead sections (WP:LEAD), the introduction should summarize the most important points of the article, including notable geopolitical status. Due weight: Germany is widely recognized as a great power in international relations, due to its economic strength, political influence, and leadership within the European Union. The term reflects the scholarly and international consensus found in reliable sources and Inserting world´s 3rd biggest due to Wiki´s guideline on lead sections (WP:LEAD), key facts that define a country’s global status—such as its economic ranking—should be summarized early in the article. Due weight and relevance: Germany’s position as the third-largest economy in the world by nominal GDP (as recognized by the IMF and World Bank) is a major aspect of its international importance. Including this fact gives appropriate weight to a defining characteristic, in line with WP:DUE. so can I get the input of others? BauhausFan89 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Can't we find a more illustrative image than "Windmills behind Lisberg Castle"? Seems rather insignificant to me. If you have any suggestions for a better image that would fit in the section, it'd be appreciated. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Windmills Baltic 1.jpg? German wind energy is the main source of renewable energy for the country and the sea parks play a major role in it. BauhausFan89 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Nikkimaria is removing the image place all together without any talk disscusion and keeps removing it over wrong lay out issue claims even after the mild one of the NEW image in the image place was fixed. I will insert the old image there and ask for a disscusion here if the new one can be inserted. BauhausFan89 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Both images displace the following content and cause unnecessary whitespace in subsequent sections. The susection isn't large enough to support two images. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::that is not true. Neuschwanenstein would not move an inch if you remove a image in the current layout. and with my modification to the ICE subtext you can insert the North Sea image too. can I get the input of others? BauhausFan89 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would like to the include the north sea image with the line "windmills in the German North sea". same layout like now with a better image, showing the wide spread infrastructure in Germany´s energy transition. BauhausFan89 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The location currently occupied by an image (previously Lisberg Castle) should contain an image. a photo of North Sea wind turbines representing Germany’s Energiewende. MOS:IMAGES encourages the use of images when they “illustrate the material” and improve understanding. due weight (WP:DUE) Due to one line of subtext the image fully complies with WP:ACCESSIBILITY. BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Germany|answered=y}}

I noticed two errors in this sentence:

"The colonial government in South West Africa (present-day Namibia), from 1904 to 1907, carried out the annihilation of the local Herero and Namaqua peoples as punishment for an uprising; this was the 20th century's first genocide."

Firstly, according to a citation within the official article on the Herero and Nama genocide, it is quoted from the former Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs (German: Bundesminister des Auswärtigen) of Germany, Heiko Maas, "That includes our naming the events of the German colonial era in today’s Namibia, and particularly the atrocities between 1904 and 1908 [referencing the Herero and Nama genocide], unsparingly and without euphemisms. We will now officially call these events what they were from today’s perspective: a genocide.”{{Cite news |last=Oltermann |first=Philip |date=28 May 2021 |title=Germany agrees to pay Namibia €1.1bn over historical Herero-Nama genocide |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/28/germany-agrees-to-pay-namibia-11bn-over-historical-herero-nama-genocide |access-date=27 February 2025 |work=The Guardian |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210601024320/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/28/germany-agrees-to-pay-namibia-11bn-over-historical-herero-nama-genocide |archive-date=1 June 2021}} This means that it is officially recognized that the genocide lasted from 1904 to 1908.

Secondly, "Namaqua" is an outdated term for the Nama people that comes from the Nama language and literally means "the place of the Nama".

In conclusion, I suggest changing this sentence to:

"The colonial government in South West Africa (present-day Namibia), from 1904 to 1908, carried out the annihilation of the local Herero and Nama peoples as punishment for an uprising; this was the 20th century's first genocide."

Sincerely & Aufrichtig, Babelball (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Well reasoned and sourced. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

@Nikkimaria I think the fact that Germany is the world's largest exporter of cars by value is highly notable and should be kept. The featured Japan article also includes Japan's car export rank. Maxeto0910 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::Because Germany produces fewer cars than Japan and yet exports more by value, clearly showing that German cars are high in demand on the global market. If it is justified to include the ranking of car exports in the Japan article, it is even more so here. Maxeto0910 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Good, thank you. Maxeto0910 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bundesrepublik&redirect=no Bundesrepublik] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 24#Bundesrepublik}} until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the image of Angela Merkel at the 2013 Electromobility Summit with the following:

File:Mercedes-Benz W223 IMG 6663.jpg. By value, Germany was the world's largest exporter of cars in 2023.]]

I think this image better illustrates Germany's strong automotive industry for which the country is widely known for and fits better with a section about the general state of the German economy, as the Merkel image focuses too much on environmental aspects, which are only dealt with one subsection later and are not the topic here. For reference: the featured Japan article also has an image of an iconic Japanese car model in its economy section. Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think the present version is preferable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Why? Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::A car is not illustrative of a country for most readers; I'd argue for removing the Japan example on the same basis. If you showed the average reader the two images side by side, they wouldn't be able to tell which is supposed to be in which country article. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think an iconic car model from a major brand can indeed be illustrative of a country's economy, which the section is about. In contrast, I think highlighting Germany's goal that all new cars sold in Germany must be zero-emission vehicles by 2035 is even less illustrative and noteworthy for the country, as most developed countries have similar goals. The argument that most readers probably won't be able to tell if one image without its caption is about Germany or another (European) country applies to most images in this article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: I favour person images over car of object images. This is one car of one brand, partly build in Germany, maybe a kind of icon but not suited to illustrate the country article. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::A photo of a car doesn't contribute to the understanding of the typical reader, though. Is there an alternative image that you think would do so? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::"[...] doesn't contribute to the understanding of the typical reader [...]"

::::::Well, neither does a photo of a city's skyline, a train, or a castle, I think. For most images in country articles, the meaningful messages are conveyed by the caption, and the images are often just examples for better illustration. Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree completely! Many country articles have too many images that don't really help readers. But I don't think that's a reason to add more. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Sure, but I'm not arguing for adding a new image but for replacing an existing image with another one which I think is better. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't agree that it is, but let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Does Germany just not do polls and censuses about these? 92.53.60.8 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:They do not, actually. Can you guess why? Remsense ‥ 论 09:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should remove the images from Template:Largest cities of Germany as we do with all our FA and GA articles about countries due to lack of accessibility because they're so small and teeny. As a featured content article it should follow our basic manual style and not sandwich the text simply to add images that aren't visible at 120px that is 130% smaller then we advices .... this is normally done during the review but I guess someone likes them. Moxy🍁 22:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds like a good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Many city-related navigation templates (e.g., for France, Italy, or the U.S.) include small thumbnails. Removing them only from this one might create inconsistency unless there's a broader consensus to update similar templates as well. BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::All our FA and GA articles don't have non-accessible images so that is the norm for articles that have gone under community review. On a side note you've reverted a image six times now. Please be aware that a slow editwar can get you blocked. Moxy🍁 00:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Besides the fact that the images are perfectly accessible from any normal screen and that they can also be enchanced on a phone you have WP:ACCESSIBILITY stating images should be made accessible where possible, especially in articles but that decorative images in templates or infoboxes are explicitly allowed, and often don't require alt text if they serve a primarily visual function (e.g. cityscape icons, flags). This aligns with the W3C accessibility standards. According to MOS:ICON, icons can enhance user experience if used sparingly and with clear meaning. For templates like "Largest cities in Germany", a small, recognizable image (such as a cityscape) can help readers quickly identify the context. It enhances usability without significantly impacting accessibility if implemented thoughtfully (e.g., marked as decorative with alt=""). and the reverting was after non agreed upon removal of an image, so if anything the removers should think about stoping their edit war. BauhausFan89 (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:These city templates are a regular issue. A population density map would be much better. CMD (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Omg..... agree completely. Moxy🍁 03:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Germany|answered=yes}}

Add the water border with Schweden and England to the top of the page I have a source

https://www.marineregions.org/eezdetails.php?mrgid=5669

the red areas touch Schweden and England so border Kommandant-Brot (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done for now}}: I don't think it is common to list two countries as bordering each other just because their exclusive economic zones touch. Do you have any sources to establish this as a valid definition of border? meamemg (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Although it's a controversial and disputed topic legally I believe the Bundestag and Bundesrat are not one single parliament but two separate unicameral institutions, people may still fairly argue this is defacto bicameralism but I feel the infobox should include this nuance and avoid use of the terms lower and upper house. LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have sourcing supporting your interpretation? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)